Use your social profile to sign in faster.
Or use your username or password below:
Bad username or password
Forgot your password?
This all makes me wonder how much of Ivey's reputation as a great poker player is really based on bumhunting, peeking at opponenet's cards, looking for imperfections in cards, etc. and how much is actual solid poker play.
donpeters wroteFor everyone here claiming Phil Ivey lacks ethics or pointing out that he did something wrong, he didn't. Like DutchBoyd1 said, "Ivey won by exploiting their own defective equipment" and that is him simply gaining an edge over the casino. This is exactly what casinos do to all players in their games — they exploit the edges they have in order for the house to have the winning edge in all games.
For everyone here claiming Phil Ivey lacks ethics or pointing out that he did something wrong, he didn't. Like DutchBoyd1 said, "Ivey won by exploiting their own defective equipment" and that is him simply gaining an edge over the casino. This is exactly what casinos do to all players in their games — they exploit the edges they have in order for the house to have the winning edge in all games.
No it's not exactly what casinos do to all players in their games. Casinos have a mathematical edge that is understood, or should be understood, by all parties before they sit down at a table. That's were they get their edge. It's all up front. Dealers aren't exploiting things like flaws in cards. Many games are played for the thrill of the game, not for profit. If Phil Ivey wants to profit in a game that a casino offers, he should choose one in which he has a skill edge. What Ivey did certainly wasn't illegal, but it was by no means ethical.
Although Phil Ivey lacks ethics, the dealers clearly lacked some pretty essential training. I think it's clear that the casinos are ultimately responsible for what happened.
It raises the question of were any of the dealers aware of this flaw with the cards when playing a game like Blackjack.
It's nice to see that with all the violent crime these days that the police still have so much free time.
This is nothing new. US casinos used to be against online poker. But now that they've seen how lucrative online poker can be, they've been trying to get rid of the competition any way they can. It's not all that different a mind set than when organized crime ran Las Vegas.
The big question for poker players now is, what will be the rake?
Nik seems like a smart guy, but these videos are really just infomercials with a few tips sprinkled in so the vids can be called training.
Rich Ryan is wrong because:
First of all, RR argued that stats shouldn't be changed even if the individual is found guilty of cheating. That simply defies common sense.
Secondly, if the cheating is so overt that it leaves little question as to what is going on, the folks who run the GPI are certainly within their rights to suspend the cheaters from the GPI rankings for the sake of the integrity of the GPI. That integrity was called into question when the video surfaced. If someone robs me at gun point, I have the right to shoot the robber regardless of the fact that there hasn't been a formal ruling as to his guilt. Sometimes reasonable action is justifiable prior to judicial rulings.
Rich Ryan, I think your opinion on this is just dead wrong. When you say, "However, because you simply can’t deny numbers, I wholeheartedly disagree with removing Pasqualini, Rossi and anyone else from the GPI rankings." you are completely ignoring the fact when dealing with poker cheats, "denying numbers" is exactly what you should do. Removing cheats from the GPI only serves to increase the accuracy of the numbers.
Don't be bummed. This bill was never about legalizing online poker anyway. It was a trojan horse.
Jason Senti certainly isn't doing the poker community any favors by supporting this particular bill. The Reid/Kyl bill helps Reid and Kyl (both of whom are online poker opponents) not the poker players. It doesn't legalize poker in a single state while giving the authors the necessary tools to end online poker as it exists. But by mislabeling it as a bill that legalizes poker there will be plenty of poker players who blindly sign on.